As long as we are in such a close alliance with the US, everyone looses.
We need to get rid of any political influence from the US in Europe, and block US companies from abusing European markets.
How can politicians for example allow that American companies have their cloud servers in the US? And then European data is under US juristiction, and are can be viewed by the government there at any time without warrant because the data is not about US citizens.
Why do we need biometric passports just because the US needs them when we fly in? Let everyone who do not plan on going to the US have regular passports and those who wants to go to the US have biometric ones.
Why do we want naked scanners? Again, US influence? Well put everyone who wants to go to the UK in naked scanners and leave the rest to regular scans.
Thats just a few example of the abuse.www.openfreedom.eu

I have read 'Dapples', 'maximus zebra', 'dutcheconomist' and 'Hoaghes' – each of whom is of course welcome to their views. But how does “selfish” (maximus zebra) and “irrelevant” (dutcheconomist and Hoaghes) help? Indeed, despite a carefully worded speech, Dapples does appear to misunderstand/misinterpret (“help form the EU”) the British position. The Prime Minister states, “We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members – North, South, East, West, large, small, old and new. Some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration. And many others, including Britain, who would never embrace that goal” and “Put simply, many ask ‘why can’t we just have what we voted to join – a common market?’ ”. Note, his “never embrace”, words which have always reflected the will of the majority British electorate, since 1972. We don’t want to “help form” a union politically; we joined and want to continue to “help form” what we agreed, an economic community, not a political union (so, no, not “ever closer union”). A French politician (Fabius) has spoken of the British having joined a football game and then wanting to play rugby. In fact, we were playing a football game, 1972/73 onwards, and then continental politicians decided to play rugby, from the 1980's. I suppose that if there persists a misunderstanding of the British position, particularly by politicians and commentators within the continent, then it is made – over time – more likely, rather than less, that Britain does create a different status after a referendum. Personally, I hope that it is not an exit. But an exit is more likely unless others take the time to understand that from the 1980's onwards, an economic community has been sacrificed for an unrealistic political union, and in any event, a political union with which British voters will not (in much judgment, ever) agree. Hence the moves that the Prime Minister is making. His moves do not in fact reflect only the views of many in the Conservative Party but reflect the majority views of the British electorate, which (as regards British political will) takes democratic precedence over any Brussels or Strasbourg entity.

"Mr Rutte’s previous government, with his centre-right Liberals in queasy pseudo-partnership with Geert Wilders’s far-right Party for Freedom, was often hostile to Brussels."

Mr. Wilders also decided to run a basically single issue campaign, a referendum on Europe so to say (with his Freedom party wanting out of it of course) and lost heavily in the elections last September. The majority of the Dutch realize their future lies within Europe and change has to come from within. In that respect I think Cameron made a serious misjudgement of character.

That is not to say the Dutch would like Britain to leave the EU, as a constructive partner they could affect reforms from within and be one of the most powerful European nations. Too bad they have decided to become more and more irrelevant and inwards looking in a European perspective, something that will hurt British business more than anything with 4 years of uncertainty about where they will stand in the end.

I have read 'Dapples', 'maximus zebra', 'dutcheconomist' and 'Hoaghes' – each of whom is of course welcome to their views. But how does “selfish” (maximus zebra) and “irrelevant” (dutcheconomist and Hoaghes) help? Indeed, despite a carefully worded speech, Dapples does appear to misunderstand/misinterpret (“help form the EU”) the British position. The Prime Minister states, “We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members – North, South, East, West, large, small, old and new. Some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration. And many others, including Britain, who would never embrace that goal” and “Put simply, many ask ‘why can’t we just have what we voted to join – a common market?’ ”. Note, his “never embrace”, words which have always reflected the will of the majority British electorate, since 1972. We don’t want to “help form” a union politically; we joined and want to continue to “help form” what we agreed, an economic community, not a political union (so, no, not “ever closer union”). A French politician (Fabius) has spoken of the British having joined a football game and then wanting to play rugby. In fact, we were playing a football game, 1972/73 onwards, and then continental politicians decided to play rugby, from the 1980's. I suppose that if there persists a misunderstanding of the British position, particularly by politicians and commentators within the continent, then it is made – over time – more likely, rather than less, that Britain does create a different status after a referendum. Personally, I hope that it is not an exit. But an exit is more likely unless others take the time to understand that from the 1980's onwards, an economic community has been sacrificed for an unrealistic political union, and in any event, a political union with which British voters will not (in much judgment, ever) agree. Hence the moves that the Prime Minister is making. His moves do not in fact reflect only the views of many in the Conservative Party but reflect the majority views of the British electorate, which (as regards British political will) takes democratic precedence over any Brussels or Strasbourg entity.

First, Cameron did not stay he wants to leave the European Union, all he will try is to get more favorable terms for Britain. Such position is similar to the Netherlands. As per capita the largest contributor to the EU, the Dutch have received a special arrangement to get some extra credit back. Other countries have done the same. Political leaders in the EU have always placed domestic priorities on top because of their electoral mandate. France is similarly motivated to stick to the huge agriculture budget. In the end, all the same.

Second, within the EU is has always been in the domestic countries' best interest to tranfer capital to other countries to a certain extend. The early transfers in the 1980s to the South had the aim to stabilize the region so as to open the way for new trade and investment relations. Similarly, after the fall of the wall, in the 1990s transers to the East became a self-interested choice. Likewise, the bigger challenge posed by the financial crises is that now it is again is in country's their interest not to let Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia, Portugal, Spain, Ierland and other falter, because it will harm the euro. So again, in the end, all the some self-motivated politicans will use the interest of Europe as their own policy tools to lift their economy. Dijsselbloem, the new chairman of the Eurogroup, certainly understands how to play this game, Britian is irrelevant for this Herculian task.

I have read 'Dapples', 'maximus zebra', 'dutcheconomist' and 'Hoaghes' – each of whom is of course welcome to their views. But how does “selfish” (maximus zebra) and “irrelevant” (dutcheconomist and Hoaghes) help? Indeed, despite a carefully worded speech, Dapples does appear to misunderstand/misinterpret (“help form the EU”) the British position. The Prime Minister states, “We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members – North, South, East, West, large, small, old and new. Some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration. And many others, including Britain, who would never embrace that goal” and “Put simply, many ask ‘why can’t we just have what we voted to join – a common market?’ ”. Note, his “never embrace”, words which have always reflected the will of the majority British electorate, since 1972. We don’t want to “help form” a union politically; we joined and want to continue to “help form” what we agreed, an economic community, not a political union (so, no, not “ever closer union”). A French politician (Fabius) has spoken of the British having joined a football game and then wanting to play rugby. In fact, we were playing a football game, 1972/73 onwards, and then continental politicians decided to play rugby, from the 1980's. I suppose that if there persists a misunderstanding of the British position, particularly by politicians and commentators within the continent, then it is made – over time – more likely, rather than less, that Britain does create a different status after a referendum. Personally, I hope that it is not an exit. But an exit is more likely unless others take the time to understand that from the 1980's onwards, an economic community has been sacrificed for an unrealistic political union, and in any event, a political union with which British voters will not (in much judgment, ever) agree. Hence the moves that the Prime Minister is making. His moves do not in fact reflect only the views of many in the Conservative Party but reflect the majority views of the British electorate, which (as regards British political will) takes democratic precedence over any Brussels or Strasbourg entity.

The Economist says "The Dutch are interested in getting something different out of Europe. They are not interested in getting out of Europe". That is a disingenuous allusion and implication. A proper reading of the tone and thrust of David Cameron's speech, and indeed its detail, demonstrates that he is indeed himself "interested in getting something different out of Europe". We are finding many media sources crudely and inaccurately avoiding a proper analysis and understanding of the EU subterfuge (since 1973) that has drawn the UK into matters that we not agreed and not even foreseen in 1972-3. It is a pity that the Economist chooses to be in that unhelpful and (in the end) divisive camp.

Things changes. The UK government hopefully is not the same as it was when it was founded.
Most people in the UK fail to understand how progressive and modern the European government is, and dreams of a stagnant and locked government that never changes, like in the US.www.openfreedom.eu

To understand Dutch policy choices, it is important to understand a whopping 65% of Dutch GDP comes from trade. To a large extent, that is from its privileged position as the de facto Import-export unit of Germany, Inc.

This explains both the emphasis on free trade and the attachment to a strong Europe that the British may find puzzling or even contradictory.

The Netherlands is a fine country. Extremely well organised, very tidy and super infrastructure. As you say it is economically intense. It's one of Europes top agricultural producers for example. Most people do not know that.
Netherlands is also good on technology, research and development.www.openfreedom.eu